共产党宣言---英文版

jindaqiao

共产党宣言：美国中学生十五本必读书之一




Manifesto of the Communist Party

Introduction

I. Bourgeosie And Proletarians

II. Proletarians And Communists

III Socialist And Communist Literature

IV. Position Of The Communists In Relation To The Various Existing Opposition Parties

ASCII Text :
From the English edition of 1888, edited by Friedrich Engels
Transcribed by Allen Lutins with assistance from Jim Tarzia
Downloaded from the Wiretap Gopher







Manifesto of the Communist Party
Introduction


[From the English edition of 1888, edited by Friedrich Engels]

A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact.

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.



Manifesto of the Communist Party
I. Bourgeois and Proletarians

The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with clash antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms: Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its time, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune; here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable \"third estate\" of the monarchy (as in France), afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world-market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his \"natural superiors,\" and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous \"cash payment.\" It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value. And in place of the numberless and feasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff. The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political sway of the bourgeois class.

A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand inforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons -- the modern working class -- the proletarians.

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed -- a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of the machinery, etc.

Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hatef

ul and the more embittering it is.

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by the new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

At this stage the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeoisie. Thus the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (Trades Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there the contest breaks out into riots.

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus the ten-hours' bill in England was carried.

Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all times, with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for its help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own instruments of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling classes are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

The \"dangerous class,\" the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

In the conditions of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family-relations; modern industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

All the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

jindaqiao

Manifesto of the Communist Party
II. Proletarians and Communists

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties is only:
(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of entire proletariat, independently of nationality.
(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of Communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage-labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class-character.

Let us now take wage-labour.

The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence, which is absolutely requisite in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with, is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying. But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeoisie about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic modes of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property-historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production -- this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives.

Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world-market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express the fact, that within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form

they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy top wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will of course be different in different countries.

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.


柳荫居士 2004-12-24 06:17
Manifesto of the Communist Party
III. Socialist and Communist Literature

1. Reactionary Socialism
A. Feudal Socialism
B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism
C. German, or "True," Socialism
2. Conservative, Or Bourgeois, Socialism
3. Critical-Utopian Socialism And Communism



1. REACTIONARY SOCIALISM
A. Feudal Socialism
Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation, these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political contest was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.

In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy were obliged to lose sight, apparently, of their own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new master, and whispering in his ears sinister prophecies of coming catastrophe.

In this way arose Feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart's core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.

The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.

One section of the French Legitimists and "Young England" exhibited this spectacle.

In pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite different, and that are now antiquated. In showing that, under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society.

For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeoisie amounts to this, that under the bourgeois regime a class is being developed, which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of society.

What they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletariat, as that it creates a revolutionary proletariat.

In political practice, therefore, they join in all coercive measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honour for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits.

As the parson has ever gone band in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism.

Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian Socialism is but the holy, water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.

B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism
The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that has ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. The mediaeval burgesses and the small peasant proprietors were the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed, industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising bourgeoisie.

In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced, in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.

In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois regime, the standard of the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes should take up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France but also in England.

This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.

In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange, within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.

Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture, patriarchal relations in agriculture.

Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception, this form of Socialism ended in a miserable fit of the blues.

C. German, or "True," Socialism
The Socialist and Communist literature of France, a literature that originated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that was the expression of the struggle against this power, was introduced into Germany at a time when the bourgeoisie, in that country, had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism.

German philosophers, would-be philosophers, and beaux esprits, eagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting, that when these writings immigrated from France into Germany, French social conditions had not immigrated along with them. In contact with German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practical significance, and assumed a purely literary aspect. Thus, to the German philosophers of the eighteenth century, the demands of the first French Revolution were nothing more than the demands of "ractical Reason" in general, and the utterance of the will of the revolutionary French bourgeoisie signified in their eyes the law of pure Will, of Will as it was bound to be, of true human Will generally.

The world of the German literate consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas into harmony with their ancient philosophical conscience, or rather, in annexing the French ideas without deserting their own philosophic point of view.

This annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign language is appropriated, namely, by translation.

It is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic Saints over the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancient heathendom had been written. The German literate reversed this process with the profane French literature. They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance, beneath the French criticism of the economic functions of money, they wrote "Alienation of Humanity," and beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois State they wrote "dethronement of the Category of the General," and so forth.

The introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of the French historical criticisms they dubbed "hilosophy of Action," "True Socialism," "German Science of Socialism," "hilosophical Foundation of Socialism," and so on.

The French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome "French one-sidedness" and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.

This German Socialism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously and solemnly, and extolled its poor stock-in-trade in such mountebank fashion, meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic innocence.

The fight of the German, and especially, of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal movement, became more earnest.

By this, the long wished-for opportunity was offered to "True" Socialism of confronting the political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things whose attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.

To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons, professors, country squires and officials, it served as a welcome scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.

It was a sweet finish after the bitter pills of floggings and bullets with which these same governments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class risings.

While this "True" Socialism thus served the governments as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of the German Philistines. In Germany the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things.

To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction; on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. "True" Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.

The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry "eternal truths," all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public.

And on its part, German Socialism recognised, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty- bourgeois Philistine.

It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the "brutally destructive" tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.

2. CONSERVATIVE, OR BOURGEOIS, SOCIALISM
A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of Socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

We may site Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misere as an example of this form.

The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class, by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economic relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be effected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression, when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois -- for the benefit of the working class.

3. CRITICAL-UTOPIAN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM
We do not here refer to that literature which, in every great modern revolution, has always given voice to the demands of the proletariat, such as the writings of Babeuf and others.

The first direct attempts of the proletariat to attain its own ends, made in times of universal excitement, when feudal society was being overthrown, these attempts necessarily failed, owing to the then undeveloped state of the proletariat, as well as to the absence of the economic conditions for its emancipation, conditions that had yet to be produced, and could be produced by the impending bourgeois epoch alone. The revolutionary literature that accompanied these first movements of the proletariat had necessarily a reactionary character. It inculcated universal asceticism and social levelling in its crudest form.

The Socialist and Communist systems properly so called, those of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen and others, spring into existence in the early undeveloped period, described above, of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie (see Section 1. Bourgeois and Proletarians).

The founders of these systems see, indeed, the class antagonisms, as well as the action of the decomposing elements, in the prevailing form of society. But the proletariat, as yet in its infancy, offers to them the spectacle of a class without any historical initiative or any independent political movement.

Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the economic situation, as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore search after a new social science, after new social laws, that are to create these conditions.

Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action, historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones, and the gradual, spontaneous class-organisation of the proletariat to the organisation of society specially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans.

In the formation of their plans they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them.

The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?

Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavour, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.

Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.

But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures proposed in them -- -such as the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the functions of the State into a mere superintendence of production, all these proposals, point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in these publications, are recognised in their earliest, indistinct and undefined forms only. These proposals, therefore, are of a purely Utopian character.

The significance of Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism bears an inverse relation to historical development. In proportion as the modern class struggle develops and takes definite shape, this fantastic standing apart from the contest, these fantastic attacks on it, lose all practical value and all theoretical justification. Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias, of founding isolated "phalansteres," of establishing "Home Colonies," of setting up a "Little Icaria" -- duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem -- and to realise all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees they sink into the category of the reactionary conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.

They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel.

The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France, respectively, oppose the Chartists and the Reformistes.





IV. Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Pa
Manifesto of the Communist Party
IV. Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties

Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.

The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France the Communists ally themselves with the Social-Democrats, against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phrases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.

In Switzerland they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.

In Poland they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.

In Germany they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.

But they never cease, for a single instant, to instil into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightaway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.

The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation, and with a much more developed proletariat, than that of England was in the seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!

END.

jindaqiao

一个幽灵，共产主义的幽灵，在欧洲游荡。为了对这个幽灵进行神圣的围剿，旧欧洲的一切势力，教皇和沙皇、梅特涅和基佐、法国的激进派和德国的警察，都联合起来了。

  有哪一个反对党不被它的当政的敌人骂为共产党呢？又有哪一个反对党不拿共产主义这个罪名去回敬更进步的反对党人和自己的反动敌人呢？

  从这一事实中可以得出两个结论：

  共产主义已经被欧洲的一切势力公认为一种势力；

  现在是共产党人向全世界公开说明自己的观点、自己的目的、自己的意图并且拿党自己的宣言来反驳关于共产主义幽灵的神话的时候了。

  为了这个目的，各国共产党人集会于伦敦，拟定了如下的宣言，用英文、法文、德文、意大利文、弗拉芒文和丹麦文公布于世。

　

一、资产者和无产者

　 至今一切社会的历史都是阶级斗争的历史。

  自由民和奴隶、贵族和平民、领主和农奴、行会师傅和帮工，一句话，压迫者和被压迫者，始终处于相互对立的地位，进行不断的、有时隐蔽有时公开的斗争，而每一次斗争的结局是整个社会受到革命改造或者斗争的各阶级同归于尽。

  在过去的各个历史时代，我们几乎到处都可以看到社会完全划分为各个不同的等级，看到社会地位分成的多种多样的层次。在古罗马，有贵族、骑士、平民、奴隶，在中世纪，有封建主、臣仆、行会师傅、帮工、农奴，而且几乎在每一个阶级内部又有一些特殊的阶层。

  从封建社会的灭亡中产生出来的现代资产阶级社会并没有消灭阶级对立。它只是用新的阶级、新的压迫条件、新的斗争形式代替了旧的。

  但是，我们的时代，资产阶级时代，却有一个特点：它使阶级对立简单化了。整个社会日益分裂为两大敌对的阵营，分裂为两大相互直接对立的阶级：资产阶级和无产阶级。

  从中世纪的农奴中产生了初期城市的城关市民；从这个市民等级中发展出最初的资产阶级分子。

  美洲的发现、绕过非洲的航行，给新兴的资产阶级开辟了新天地。东印度和中国的市场、美洲的殖民化、对殖民地的贸易、交换手段和一般的商品的增加，使商业、航海业和工业空前高涨，因而使正在崩溃的封建社会内部的革命因素迅速发展。

  以前那种封建的或行会的工业经营方式已经不能满足随着新市场的出现而增加的需求了。工场手工业代替了这种经营方式。行会师傅被工业的中间等级排挤掉了；各种行业组织之间的分工随着各个作坊内部的分工的出现而消失了。

  但是，市场总是在扩大，需求总是在增加。甚至工场手工业也不再能满足需要了。于是，蒸汽和机器引起了工业生产的革命。现代大工业化替了工场手工业；工业中的百万富翁，一支一支产业大军的首领，现代资产者，代替了工业的中间等级。

  大工业建立了由美洲的发现所准备好的世界市场。世界市场使商业、航海业和陆路交通得到了巨大的发展。这种发展又反过来促进了工业的扩展，同时，随着工业、商业、航海业和铁路的扩展，资产阶级也在同一程度上得到发展，增加自己的资本，把中世纪遗留下来的一切阶级都排挤到后面去。

  由此可见，现代资产阶级本身是一个长期发展过程的产物，是生产方式和交换方式的一系列变革的产物。

  资产阶级的这种发展的每一个阶段，都伴随着相应的政治上进展。它在封建主统治下是被压迫的等级，在公社里是武装的和自治的团体，在一些地方组成独立的城市共和国，在另一些地方组成君主国中的纳税的第三等级；后来，在工场手工业时期，它是等级制君主国或专制君主国中同贵族抗衡的势力，而且是大君主国的主要基础；最后，从大工业和世界市场建立的时候起，它在现代的代议制国家里夺得了独占的政治统治。现代的国家政权不过是管理整个资产阶级的共同事务的委员会罢了。

  资产阶级在历史上曾经起过非常革命的作用。

  资产阶级在它已经取得了统治的地方把一切封建的、宗法的和田园诗般的关系都破坏了。它无情地斩断了把人们束缚于天然尊长的形形色色的封建羁绊，它使人和人之间除了赤裸裸的利害关系，除了冷酷无情的“现金交易”，就再也没有任何别的联系了。它把宗教虔诚、骑士热忱、小市民伤感这些情感的神圣发作，淹没在利己主义打算的冰水之中。它把人的尊严变成了交换价值，用一种没有良心的贸易自由代替了无数特许的和自力挣得的自由。总而言之，它用公开的、无耻的、直接的、露骨的剥削代替了由宗教幻想和政治幻想掩盖着的剥削。

  资产阶级抹去了一切向来受人尊崇和令人敬畏的职业的神圣光环。它把医生、律师、教士、诗人和学者变成了它出钱招雇的雇佣劳动者。

  资产阶级撕下了罩在家庭关系上的温情脉脉的面纱，把这种关系变成了纯粹的金钱关系。

  资产阶级揭示了，在中世纪深受反动派称许的那种人力的野蛮使用，是以极端怠惰作为相应补充的。它第一个证明了，人的活动能够取得什么样的成就。它创造了完全不同于埃及金字塔、罗马水道和哥特式教堂的奇迹；它完成了完全不同于民族大迁徙和十字军东征的远征。

  资产阶级除非对生产工具，从而对生产关系，从而对全部社会关系不断地进行革命，否则就不能生存下去。反之，原封不动地保持旧的生产方式，却是过去的一切工业阶级生存的首要条件。生产的不断变革，一切社会状况不停的动荡，永远的不安定和变动，这就是资产阶级时代不同于过去一切时代的地方。一切固定的僵化的关系以及与之相适应的素被尊崇的观念和见解都被消除了，一切新形成的关系等不到固定下来就陈旧了。一切等级的和固定的东西都烟消云散了，一切神圣的东西都被亵渎了。人们终于不得不用冷静的眼光来看他们的生活地位、他们的相互关系。

  不断扩大产品销路的需要，驱使资产阶级奔走于全球各地。它必须到处落户，到处开发，到处建立联系。

  资产阶级，由于开拓了世界市场，使一切国家的生产和消费都成为世界性的了。使反动派大为惋惜的是，资产阶级挖掉了工业脚下的民族基础。古老的民族工业被消灭了，并且每天都还在被消灭。它们被新的工业排挤掉了，新的工业的建立已经成为一切文明民族的生命攸关的问题；这些工业所加工的，已经不是本地的原料，而是来自极其遥远的地区的原料；它们的产品不仅供本国消费，而且同时供世界各地消费。旧的、靠国产品来满足的需要，被新的、要靠极其遥远的国家和地带的产品来满足的需要所代替了。过去那种地方的和民族的自给自足和闭关自守状态，被各民族的各方面的互相往来和各方面的互相依赖所代替了。物质的生产是如此，精神的生产也是如此。各民族的精神产品成了公共的财产。民族的片面性和局限性日益成为不可能，于是由许多种民族的和地方的文学形成了一种世界的文学。

  资产阶级，由于一切生产工具的迅速改进，由于交通的极其便利，把一切民族甚至最野蛮的民族都卷到文明中来了。它的商品的低廉价格，是它用来摧毁一切万里长城、征服野蛮人最顽强的仇外心理的重炮。它迫使一切民族----如果它们不想灭亡的话----采用资产阶级的生产方式；它迫使它们在自己那里推行所谓文明，即变成资产者。一句话，它按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个世界。

  资产阶级使农村屈服于城市的统治。它创立了巨大的城市，使城市人口比农村人口大大增加起来，因而使很大一部分居民脱离了农村生活的愚昧状态。正象它使农村从属于城市一样，它使未开化和半开化的国家从属于文明的国家，使农民的民族从属于资产阶级的民族，使东方从属于西方。

  资产阶级日甚一日地消灭生产资料、财产和人口的分散状态。它使人口密集起来，使生产资料集中起来，使财产聚集在少数人的手里。由此必然产生的结果就是政治的集中。各自独立的、几乎只有同盟关系的、各有不同利益、不同法律、不同政府、不同关税的各个地区，现在已经结合为一个拥有统一的政府、统一的法律、统一的民族阶级利益和统一的关税的统一的民族。

  资产阶级在它的不到一百年的阶级统治中所创造的生产力，比过去一切世代创造的全部生产力还要多，还要大。自然力的征服，机器的采用，化学在工业和农业中的应用，轮船的行驶，铁路的通行，电报的使用，整个整个大陆的开垦，河川的通航，仿佛用法术从地下呼唤出来的大量人口，----过去哪一个世纪料想到在社会劳动里蕴藏有这样的生产力呢？

  由此可见，资产阶级赖以形成的生产资料和交换手段，是在封建社会里造成的。在这些生产资料和交换手段发展的一定阶段上，封建社会的生产和交换在其中进行的关系，封建的农业和工场手工业组织，一句话，封建的所有制关系，就不再适应已经发展的生产力了。这种关系已经在阻碍生产而不是促进生产了。它变成了束缚生产的桎梏。它必须被炸毁，而且已经被炸毁了。

  起而代之的是自由竞争以及与自由竞争相适应的社会制度和政治制度、资产阶级的经济统治和政治统治。

  现在，我们眼前又进行着类似的运动。资产阶级的生产关系和交换关系，资产阶级的所有制关系，这个曾经仿佛用法术创造了如此庞大的生产资料和交换手段的现代资产阶级社会，现在像一个魔法师一样不能再支配自己用法术呼唤出来的魔鬼了。几十年来的工业和商业的历史，只不过是现代生产力反抗现代生产关系、反抗作为资产阶级及其统治的存在条件的所有制关系的历史。只要指出在周期性的重复中越来越危及整个资产阶级社会生存的商业危机就够了。在商业危机期间，总是不仅有很大一部分制成的产品被毁灭掉，而且有很大一部分已经造成的生产力被毁灭掉。在危机期间，发生一种在过去一切时代看来都好像是荒唐现象的社会瘟疫，即生产过剩的瘟疫。社会突然发现自己回到了一时的野蛮状态；仿佛是一次饥荒、一场普遍的毁灭性战争，使社会失去了全部生活资料；仿佛是工业和商业全被毁灭了，----这是什么缘故呢？因为社会上文明过度，生活资料太多，工业和商业太发达。社会所拥有的生产力已经不能再促进资产阶级文明和资产阶级所有制关系的发展；相反，生产力已经强大到这种关系所不能适应的地步，它已经受到这种关系的阻碍；而它一着手克服这种障碍，就使整个资产阶级社会陷入混乱，就使资产阶级所有制的存在受到威胁。资产阶级的关系已经太狭窄了，再容纳不了它本身所造成的财富了。----资产阶级用什么办法来克服这种危机呢？一方面不得不消灭大量生产力，另一方面夺取新的市场，更加彻底地利用旧的市场。这究竟是怎样的一种办法呢？这不过是资产阶级准备更全面更猛烈的危机的办法，不过是使防止危机的手段越来越少的办法。

  资产阶级用来推翻封建制度的武器，现在却对准资产阶级自己了。

  但是，资产阶级不仅锻造了置自身于死地的武器；它还产生了将要运用这种武器的人----现代的工人，即无产者。

  随着资产阶级即资本的发展，无产阶级即现代工人阶级也在同一程度上得到发展；现代的工人只有当他们找到工作的时候才能生存，而且只有当他们的劳动增殖资本的时候才能找到工作。这些不得不把自己零星出卖的工人，像其他任何货物一样，也是一种商品，所以他们同样地受到竞争的一切变化、市场的一切波动的影响。

  由于机器的推广和分工，无产者的劳动已经失去了任何独立的性质，因而对工人也失去了任何吸引力。工人变成了机器的单纯的附属品，要求他做的只是极其简单、极其单调和极容易学会的操作。因此，花在工人身上的费用，几乎只限于维持工人生活和延续工人后代所必需的生活资料。但是，商品的价格，从而劳动的价格，是同它的生产费用相等的。因此，劳动越使人感到厌恶，工资也就越减少。不仅如此，机器越推广，分工越细致，劳动量也就越增加，这或者是由于工作时间的延长，或者是由于在一定时间内所要求的劳动的增加，机器运转的加速，等等。

  现代工业已经把家长式的师傅的小作坊变成了工业资本家的大工厂。挤在工厂里的工人群众就象士兵一样被组织起来。他们是产业军的普通士兵，受着各级军士和军官的层层监视。他们不仅是资产阶级的、资产阶级国家的奴隶，并且每日每时都受机器、受监工、首先是受各个经营工厂的资产者本人的奴役。这种专制制度越是公开地把营利宣布为自己的最终目的，它就越是可鄙、可恨和可恶。

  手的操作所要求的技巧和气力越少，换句话说，现代工业越发达，男工也就越受到女工和童工的排挤。对工人阶级来说，性别和年龄的差别再没有什么社会意义了。他们都只是劳动工具，不过因为年龄和性别的不同而需要不同的费用罢了。

  当厂主对工人的剥削告一段落，工人领到了用现钱支付的工资的时候，马上就有资产阶级中的另一部分人----房东、小店主、当铺老板等等向他们扑来。

  以前的中间等级的下层，即小工业家、小商人和小食利者，手工业者和农民----所有这些阶级都降落到无产阶级的队伍里来了，有的是因为他们的小资本不足以经营大工业，经不起较大资本家的竞争；有的是因为他们的手艺已经被新的生产方法弄得不值钱了。无产阶级的队伍就是这样从居民的所有阶级中得到补充的。

  无产阶级经历了各个不同的发展阶段。它反对资产阶级的斗争是和它的存在同时开始的。

  最初是单个的工人，然后是某一工厂的工人，然后是某一地方的某一劳动部门的工人，同直接剥削他们的单个资产者作斗争。他们不仅仅攻击资产阶级的生产关系，而且攻击生产工具本身；他们毁坏那些来竞争的外国商品，捣毁机器，烧毁工厂，力图恢复已经失去的中世纪工人的地位。

  在这个阶段上，工人们还是分散在全国各地并为竞争所分裂的群众。工人的大规模集结，还不是他们自己联合的结果，而是资产阶级联合的结果，当时资产阶级为了达到自己的政治目的必须而且暂时还能够把整个无产阶级发动起来。因此，在这个阶段上，无产者不是同自己的敌人作斗争，而是同自己的敌人的敌人作斗争，即同专制君主制的残余、地主、非工业资产阶级和小资产者作斗争。因此，整个历史运动都集中在资产阶级手里；在这种条件下取得的每一个胜利都是资产阶级的胜利。

  但是，随着工业的发展，无产阶级不仅人数增加了，而且它结合成更大的集体，它的力量日益增长，它越来越感觉到自己的力量。机器使劳动的差别越来越小，使工资几乎到处都降到同样低的水平，因而无产阶级内部的利益和生活状况也越来越趋于一致。资产者彼此间日益加剧的竞争以及由此引起的商业危机，使工人的工资越来越不稳定；机器的日益迅速的和继续不断的改良，使工人的整个生活地位越来越没有保障；单个工人和单个资产者之间的冲突越来越具有两个阶级的冲突的性质。工人开始成立反对资产者的同盟；他们联合起来保卫自己的工资。他们甚至建立了经常性的团体，以便为可能发生的反抗准备食品。有些地方，斗争爆发为起义。

  工人有时也得到胜利，但这种胜利只是暂时的。他们斗争的真正成果并不是直接取得的成功，而是工人的越来越扩大的联合。这种联合由于大工业所造成的日益发达的交通工具而得到发展，这种交通工具把各地的工人彼此联系起来。只要有了这种联系，就能把许多性质相同的地方性的斗争汇合成全国性的斗争，汇合成阶级斗争。而一切阶级斗争都是政治斗争。中世纪的市民靠乡间小道需要几百年才能达到的联合，现代的无产者利用铁路只要几年就可以达到了。

  无产者组织成为阶级，从而组织成为政党这件事，不断地由于工人的自相竞争而受到破坏。但是，这种组织总是重新产生，并且一次比一次更强大，更坚固，更有力。它利用资产阶级内部的分裂，迫使他们用法律形式承认工人的个别利益。英国的十小时工作日法案就是一个例子。

  旧社会内部的所有冲突在许多方面都促进了无产阶级的发展。资产阶级处于不断的斗争中：最初反对贵族：后来反对同工业进步有利害冲突的那部分资产阶级；经常反对一切外国的资产阶级。在这一切斗争中，资产阶级都不得不向无产阶级呼吁，要求无产阶级援助，这样就把无产阶级卷进了政治运动。于是，资产阶级自己就把自己的教育因素即反对自身的武器给予了无产阶级。

  其次，我们已经看到，工业的进步把统治阶级的整批成员抛到无产阶级队伍里去，或者至少也使他们的生活条件受到威胁。他们也给无产阶级带来了大量的教育因素。

  最后，在阶级斗争接近决战的时期，统治阶级内部的、整个旧社会内部的瓦解过程，就达到非常强烈、非常尖锐的程度，甚至使得统治阶级中的一小部分人脱离统治阶级而归附于革命的阶级，即掌握着未来的阶级。所以，正像过去贵族中有一部分人转到资产阶级方面一样，现在资产阶级中也有一部分人，特别是已经提高到从理论上认识整个历史运动这一水平的一部分资产阶级思想家，转到无产阶级方面来了。

  在当前同资产阶级对立的一切阶级中，只有无产阶级是真正革命的阶级。其余的阶级都随着大工业的发展而日趋没落和灭亡，无产阶级却是大工业本身的产物。

  中间等级，即小工业家、小商人、手工业者、农民，他们同资产阶级作斗争，都是为了维护他们这种中间等级的生存，以免于灭亡。所以，他们不是革命的，而是保守的。不仅如此，他们甚至是反动的，因为他们力图使历史的车轮倒转。如果说他们是革命的，那是鉴于他们行将转入无产阶级的队伍，这样，他们就不是维护他们目前的利益，而是维护他们将来的利益，他们就离开自己原来的立场，而站到无产阶级的立场上来。

  流氓无产阶级是旧社会最下层中消极的腐化的部分，他们在一些地方也被无产阶级革命卷到运动里来，但是，由于他们的整个生活状况，他们更甘心于被人收买，去干反动的勾当。

  在无产阶级的生活条件中，旧社会的生活条件已经被消灭了。无产者是没有财产的；他们和妻子儿女的关系同资产阶级的家庭关系再没有任何共同之处了；现代的工业劳动，现代的资本压迫，无论在英国或法国，无论在美国或德国，都是一样的，都使无产者失去了任何民族性。法律、道德、宗教，在他们看来全都是资产阶级偏见，隐藏在这些偏见后面的全都是资产阶级利益。

  过去一切阶级在争得统治之后，总是使整个社会服从于它们发财致富的条件，企图以此来巩固它们已经获得的生活地位。无产者只有废除自己的现存的占有方式，从而废除全部现存的占有方式，才能取得社会生产力。无产者没有什么自己的东西必须加以保护，他们必须摧毁至今保护和保障私有财产的一切。

  过去的一切运动都是少数人的或者为少数人谋利益的运动。无产阶级的运动是绝大多数人的、为绝大多数人谋利益的独立的运动。无产阶级，现今社会的最下层，如果不炸毁构成官方社会的整个上层，就不能抬起头来，挺起胸来。

  如果不就内容而就形式来说，无产阶级反对资产阶级的斗争首先是一国范围内的斗争。每一个国家的无产阶级当然首先应该打倒本国的资产阶级。

  在叙述无产阶级发展的最一般的阶段的时候，我们循序探讨了现存社会内部或多或少隐蔽着的国内战争，直到这个战争爆发为公开的革命，无产阶级用暴力推翻资产阶级而建立自己的统治。

  我们已经看到，至今的一切社会都是建立在压迫阶级和被压迫阶级的对立之上的。但是，为了有可能压迫一个阶级，就必须保证这个阶级至少有能够勉强维持它的奴隶般的生存的条件。农奴曾经在农奴制度下挣扎到公社社员的地位，小资产者曾经在封建专制制度的束缚下挣扎到资产者的地位。现代的工人却相反，他们并不是随着工业的进步而上升，而是越来越降到本阶级的生存条件以下。工人变成赤贫者，贫困比人口和财富增长得还要快。由此可以明显地看出，资产阶级再不能做社会的统治阶级了，再不能把自己阶级的生存条件当做支配一切的规律强加于社会了。资产阶级不能统治下去了，因为它甚至不能保证自己的奴隶维持奴隶的生活，因为它不得不让自己的奴隶落到不能养活它反而要它来养活的地步。社会再不能在它统治下生活下去了，就是说，它的存在不再同社会相容了。

  资产阶级生存和统治的根本条件，是财富在私人手里的积累，是资本的形成和增殖；资本的条件是雇佣劳动。雇佣劳动完全是建立在工人的自相竞争之上的。资产阶级无意中造成而又无力抵抗的工业进步，使工人通过结社而达到的革命联合代替了他们由于竞争而造成的分散状态。于是，随着大工业的发展，资产阶级赖以生产和占有产品的基础本身也就从它的脚下被挖掉了。它首先生产的是它自身的掘墓人。资产阶级的灭亡和无产阶级的胜利是同样不可避免的。

二、无产者和共产党人

  共产党人同全体无产者的关系是怎样的呢？

  共产党人不是同其他工人政党相对立的特殊政党。

  他们没有任何同整个无产阶级的利益不同的利益。

  他们不提出任何特殊的原则，用以塑造无产阶级的运动。

  共产党人同其他无产阶级政党不同的地方只是：一方面，在各国无产者的斗争中，共产党人强调和坚持整个无产阶级共同的不分民族的利益；另一方面，在无产阶级和资产阶级的斗争所经历的各个发展阶段上，共产党人始终代表整个运动的利益。

  因此，在实践方面，共产党人是各国工人政党中最坚决的、始终起推动作用的部分；在理论方面，他们胜过其余的无产阶级群众的地方在于他们了解无产阶级运动的条件、进程和一般结果。

  共产党人的最近目的是和其他一切无产阶级政党的最近目的一样的：使无产阶级形成为阶级，推翻资产阶级的统治，由无产阶级夺取政权。

  共产党人的理论原理，决不是以这个或那个世界改革家所发明或发现的思想、原则为根据的。

  这些原理不过是现在的阶级斗争、我们眼前的历史运动的真实关系的一般表述。废除先前存在的所有制关系，并不是共产主义所独具的特征。

  一切所有制关系都经历了经常的历史更替、经常的历史变更。

  例如，法国革命废除了封建的所有制，代之以资产阶级的所有制。

  共产主义的特征并不是要废除一般的所有制，而是要废除资产阶级的所有制。

  但是，现代的资产阶级私有制是建立在阶级对立上面、建立在一些人对另一些人的剥削上面的产品生产和占有的最后而又最完备的表现。

  从这个意义上说，共产党人可以把自己的理论概括为一句话：消灭私有制。

  有人责备我们共产党人，说我们要消灭个人挣得的、自己劳动得来的财产，要消灭构成个人的一切自由、活动和独立的基础的财产。

  好一个劳动得来的、自己挣得的、自己赚来的财产！你们说的是资产阶级所有制以前的那种小资产阶级的、小农的财产吗？那种财产用不着我们去消灭，工业的发展已经把它消灭了，而且每天都在消灭它。

  或者，你们说的是现代的资产阶级的私有财产吧？

  但是，难道雇佣劳动，无产者的劳动，会给无产者创造出财产来吗？没有的事。这种劳动所创造的是资本，即剥削雇佣劳动的财产，只有在不断产生出新的雇佣劳动来重新加以剥削的条件下才能增加起来的财产。现今的这种财产是在资本和雇佣劳动的对立中运动的。让我们来看看这种对立的两个方面吧。

  做一个资本家，这就是说，他在生产中不仅占有一种纯粹个人的地位，而且占有一种社会的地位。资本是集体的产物，它只有通过社会许多成员的共同活动，而且归根到底只有通过社会全体成员的共同活动，才能运动起来。

  因此，资本不是一种个人力量，而是一种社会力量。

  因此，把资本变为公共的、属于社会全体成员的财产，这并不是把个人财产变为社会财产。这时所改变的只是财产的社会性质。它将失掉它的阶级性质。

  现在，我们来看看雇佣劳动。

  雇佣劳动的平均价格是最低限度的工资，即工人为维持其工人的生活所必需的生活资料的数额。因此，雇佣工人靠自己的劳动所占有的东西，只够勉强维持他的生命的再生产。我们决不打算消灭这种供直接生命再生产用的劳动产品的个人占有，这种占有并不会留下任何剩余的东西使人们有可能支配别人的劳动。我们要消灭的只是这种占有的可怜的性质，在这种占有下，工人仅仅为增殖资本而活着，只有在统治阶级的利益需要他活着的时候才能活着。

  在资产阶级社会里，活的劳动只是增殖已经积累起来的劳动的一种手段。在共产主义社会里，已经积累起来的劳动只是扩大、丰富和提高工人的生活的一种手段。

  因此，在资产阶级社会里是过去支配现在，在共产主义社会里是现在支配过去。在资产阶级社会里，资本具有独立性和个性，而活动着的个人却没有独立性和个性。

  而资产阶级却把消灭这种关系说成是消灭个性和自由！说对了。的确，正是要消灭资产者的个性、独立性和自由。

  在现今的资产阶级生产关系的范围内，所谓自由就是自由贸易，自由买卖。

  但是，买卖一消失，自由买卖也就会消失。关于自由买卖的言论，也象我们的资产阶级的其他一切关于自由的大话一样，仅仅对于不自由的买卖来说，对于中世纪被奴役的市民来说，才是有意义的，而对于共产主义要消灭买卖、消灭资产阶级生产关系和资产阶级本身这一点来说，却是毫无意义的。

  我们要消灭私有制，你们就惊慌起来。但是，在你们的现存社会里，私有财产对十分之九的成员来说已经被消灭了；这种私有制之所以存在，正是因为私有财产对十分之九的成员来说已经不存在。可见，你们责备我们，是说我们要消灭那种以社会上的绝大多数人没有财产为必要条件的所有制。

  总而言之，你们责备我们，是说我们要消灭你们的那种所有制。的确，我们是要这样做的。

  从劳动不再能变为资本、货币、地租，一句话，不再能变为可以垄断的社会力量的时候起，就是说，从个人财产不再能变为资产阶级财产的时候起，你们说，个性就被消灭了。

  由此可见，你们是承认，你们所理解的个性，不外是资产者、资产阶级私有者。这样的个性确实应当被消灭。

  共产主义并不剥夺任何人占有社会产品的权力，它只剥夺利用这种占有去奴役他人劳动的权力。

  有人反驳说，私有制一消灭，一切活动就会停止，懒惰之风就会兴起。

  这样说来，资产阶级社会早就应该因懒惰而灭亡了，因为在这个社会里是劳者不获，获者不劳的。所有这些顾虑，都可以归结为这样一个同义反复：一旦没有资本，也就不再有雇佣劳动了。

  所有这些对共产主义的物质产品的占有方式和生产方式的责备， 也被扩及到精神产品的占有和生产方面。正如阶级的所有制的终止在资产者看来是生产本身的终止一样，阶级的教育的终止在他们看来就等于一切教育的终止。

  资产者唯恐失去的那种教育，对绝大多数人来说是把人训练成机器。

  但是，你们既然用你们资产阶级关于自由、教育、法等等的观念来衡量废除资产阶级所有制的主张，那就请你们不要同我们争论了。你们的观念本身是资产阶级的生产关系和所有制关系的产物，正象你们的法不过是被奉为法律的你们这个阶级的意志一样，而这种意志的内容是由你们这个阶级的物质生活条件来决定的。

  你们的利己观念使你们把自己的生产关系和所有制关系从历史的、在生产过程中是暂时的关系变成永恒的自然规律和理性规律，这种利己观念是你们和一切灭亡了的统治阶级所共有的。谈到古代所有制的时候你们所能理解的，谈到封建所有制的时候你们所能理解的，一谈到资产阶级所有制你们就再也不能理解了。

  消灭家庭！连极端的激进派也对共产党人的这种可耻的意图表示愤慨。

  现代的、资产阶级的家庭是建立在什么基础上的呢？是建立在资本上面，建立在私人发财上面的。这种家庭只是在资产阶级那里才以充分发展的形式存在着，而无产者的被迫独居和公开的卖淫则是它的补充。

  资产者的家庭自然会随着它的这种补充的消失而消失，两者都要随着资本的消失而消失。

  你们是责备我们要消灭父母对子女的剥削吗？我们承认这种罪状。

  但是，你们说，我们用社会教育代替家庭教育，就是要消灭人们最亲密的关系。

  而你们的教育不也是由社会决定的吗？不也是由你们进行教育的那种社会关系决定的吗？不也是由社会通过学校等等进行的直接的或间接的干涉决定的吗？共产党人并没有发明社会对教育的影响；他们仅仅是要改变这种影响的性质，要使教育摆脱统治阶级的影响。

  无产者的一切家庭联系越是由于大工业的发展而被破坏，他们的子女越是由于这种发展而被变成单纯的商品和劳动工具，资产阶级关于家庭和教育、关于父母和子女的亲密关系的空话就越是令人作呕。

  但是，你们共产党人是要实行公妻制的啊，----整个资产阶级异口同声地向我们这样叫喊。

  资产者是把自己的妻子看作单纯的生产工具的。他们听说生产工具将要公共使用，自然就不能不想到妇女也会遭到同样的命运。

  他们想也没有想到，问题正在于使妇女不再处于单纯生产工具的地位。

  其实，我们的资产者装得道貌岸然，对所谓的共产党人的正式公妻制表示惊讶，那是再可笑不过了。公妻制无需共产党人来实行，它差不多是一向就有的。

  我们的资产者不以他们的无产者的妻子和女儿受他们支配为满足，正式的卖淫更不必说了，他们还以互相诱奸妻子为最大的享乐。

  资产阶级的婚姻实际上是公妻制。人们至多只能责备共产党人，说他们想用正式的、公开的公妻制来代替伪善地掩蔽着的公妻制。其实，不言而喻，随着现在的生产关系的消灭，从这种关系中产生的公妻制，即正式的和非正式的卖淫，也就消失了。

  还有人责备共产党人，说他们要取消祖国，取消民族。

  工人没有祖国。决不能剥夺他们所没有的东西。因为无产阶级首先必须取得政治统治，上升为民族的阶级，把自身组织成为民族，所以它本身还是民族的，虽然完全不是资产阶级所理解的那种意思。

  随着资产阶级的发展，随着贸易自由的实现和世界市场的建立，随着工业生产以及与之相适应的生活条件的趋于一致，各国人民之间的民族隔绝和对立日益消失。

  无产阶级的统治将使它们更快地消失。联合的行动，至少是各文明国家的联合的行动，是无产阶级获得解放的首要条件之一。

  人对人的剥削一消灭，民族对民族的剥削就会随之消灭。

  民族内部的阶级对立一消失，民族之间的敌对关系就会随之消失。

  从宗教的、哲学的和一般意识形态的观点对共产主义提出的种种责难，都不值得详细讨论了。

  人们的观念、观点和概念，一名话，人们的意识，随着人们的生活条件、人们的社会关系、人们的社会存在的改变而改变，这难道需要经过深思才能了解吗？

  思想的历史除了证明精神生产随着物质生产的改造而改造，还证明了什么呢？任何一个时代的统治思想始终都不过是统治阶级的思想。

  当人们谈到使整个社会革命化的思想时，他们只是表明了一个事实：在旧社会内部已经形成了新社会的因素，旧思想的瓦解是同旧生活条件的瓦解步调一致的。

  当古代世界走向灭亡的时候，古代的各种宗教就被基督教战胜了。当基督教思想在18世纪被启蒙思想击败的时候，封建社会正在同当时革命的资产阶级进行殊死的斗争。信仰自由和宗教自由的思想，不过表明自由竞争在信仰的领域里占统治地位罢了。

   “但是”，有人会说，“宗教的、道德的、哲学的、政治的、法的观念等等在历史发展的进程中固然是不断改变的，而宗教、道德、哲学、政治和法在这种变化中却始终保存着。

   此外，还存在着一切社会状态所共有的永恒的真理，如自由、正义等等。但是共产主义要废除永恒真理，它要废除宗教、道德，而不是加以革新，所以共产主义是同至今的全部历史发展进程相矛盾的。” 　

   这种责难归结为什么呢？至今的一切社会的历史都是在阶级对立中运动的，而这种对立在各个不同的时代具有不同的形式。

   但是，不管阶级对立具有什么样的形式，社会上一部分人对另一部分人的剥削却是过去各个世纪所共有的事实。因此，毫不奇怪，各个世纪的社会意识，尽管形形色色、千差万别，总是在某些共同的形式中运动的，这些形式，这些意识形式，只有当阶级对立完全消失的时候才会完全消失。

   共产主义革命就是同传统的所有制关系实行最彻底的决裂；毫不奇怪，它在自己的发展进程中要同传统的观念实行最彻底的决裂。

   不过，我们还是把资产阶级对共产主义的种种责难撇开吧。

  前面我们已经看到，工人革命的第一步就是使无产阶级上升为统治阶级，争得民主。

  无产阶级将利用自己的政治统治，一步一步地夺取资产阶级的全部资本，把一切生产工具集中在国家即组织成为统治阶级的无产阶级手里，并且尽可能快地增加生产力的总量。

  要做到这一点，当然首先必须对所有权和资产阶级生产关系实行强制性的干涉，也就是采取这样一些措施，这些措施在经济上似乎是不够充分的和没有力量的，但是在运动进程中它们会越出本身，而且作为变革全部生产方式的手段是必不可少的。


这些措施在不同的国家里当然会是不同的。

  但是，最先进的国家几乎都可以采取下面的措施：

   1．剥夺地产，把地租用于国家支出。

   2．征收高额累进税。

   3．废除继承权。

   4．没收一切流亡分子和叛乱分子的财产。

   5．通过拥有国家资本和独享垄断权的国家银行，把信贷集中在国家手里。

   6．把全部运输业集中在国家手里。

   7．按照总的计划增加国营工厂和生产工具，开垦荒地和改良土壤。

   8．实行普遍劳动义务制，成立产业军，特别是在农业方面。

   9．把农业和工业结合起来，促使城乡对立逐步消灭。

   10．对所有儿童实行公共的和免费的教育。取消现在这种形式的儿童的工厂劳动。把教育同物质生产结合起来，等等。

  当阶级差别在发展进程中已经消失而全部生产集中在联合起来的个人的手里的时候，公共权力就失去政治性质。原来意义上的政治权力，是一个阶级用以压迫另一个阶级的有组织的暴力。如果说无产阶级在反对资产阶级的斗争中一定要联合为阶级，如果说它通过革命使自己成为统治阶级，并以统治阶级的资格用暴力消灭旧的生产关系，那么它在消灭这种生产关系的同时，也就消灭了阶级对立和阶级本身的存在条件，从而消灭了它自己这个阶级的统治。　

  代替那存在着阶级和阶级对立的资产阶级旧社会的，将是这样一个联合体，在那里，每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件。


三、社会主义的和共产主义的文献

1．反动的社会主义　

(甲)封建的社会主义　

   法国和英国的贵族，按照他们的历史地位所负的使命，就是写一些抨击现代资产阶级社会的作品。在法国的1830年七月革命和英国的改革运动中，他们再一次被可恨的暴发户打败了。从此就再谈不上严重的政治斗争了。他们还能进行的只是文字斗争。但是，即使在文字方面也不可能重弹复辟时期的老调了。为了激起同情，贵族们不得不装模做样，似乎他们已经不关心自身的利益，只是为了被剥削的工人阶级的利益才去写对资产阶级的控诉书。他们用来泄愤的手段是：唱唱诅咒他们的新统治者的歌，并向他叽叽咕咕地说一些或多或少凶险的预言。

  这样就产生了封建的社会主义，半是挽歌，半是谤文；半是过去的回音，半是未来的恫吓；它有时也能用辛辣、俏皮而尖刻的评论刺中资产阶级的心，但是它由于完全不能理解现代历史的进程而总是令人感到可笑。

  为了拉拢人民，贵族们把无产阶级的乞食袋当做旗帜来挥舞。但是，每当人民跟着他们走的时候，都发现他们的臀部带有旧的封建纹章，于是就哈哈大笑，一哄而散。

  一部分法国正统派和“青年英国”，都演过这出戏。

  封建主说，他们的剥削方式和资产阶级的剥削不同，那他们只是忘记了，他们是在完全不同的、目前已经过时的情况和条件下进行剥削的。他们说，在他们的统治下并没有出现过现代的无产阶级，那他们只是忘记了，现代的资产阶级正是他们的社会制度的必然产物。

  不过，他们毫不掩饰自己的批评的反动性质，他们控告资产阶级的主要罪状正是在于：在资产阶级的统治下有一个将把整个旧社会制度炸毁的阶级发展起来。

  他们责备资产阶级，与其说是因为它产生了无产阶级，不如说是因为它产生了革命的无产阶级。

  因此，在政治实践中，他们参与对工人阶级采取的一切暴力措施，在日常生活中，他们违背自己的那一套冠冕堂皇的言词，屈尊拾取金苹果，不顾信义、仁爱和名誉去做羊毛、甜菜和烧酒的买卖。

   正如僧侣总是同封建主携手同行一样，僧侣的社会主义也总是同封建的社会主义携手同行的。

   要给基督教禁欲主义涂上一层社会主义的色彩，是再容易不过了。基督教不是也激烈反对私有制，反对婚姻，反对国家吗？它不是提倡用行善和求乞、独身和禁欲、修道和礼拜来代替这一切吗？基督教的社会主义，只不过是僧侣用来使贵族的怨愤神圣化的圣水罢了。

　　(乙)小资产阶级的社会主义

  封建贵族并不是被资产阶级所推翻的、其生活条件在现代资产阶级社会里日益恶化和消失的唯一阶级。中世纪的城关市民等级和小农等级是现代资产阶级的前身。在工商业不很发达的国家里，这个阶级还在新兴的资产阶级身旁勉强生存着。

  在现代文明已经发展的国家里,形成了一个新的小资产阶级，它摇摆于无产阶级和资产阶级之间，并且作为资产阶级社会的补充部分不断地重新组成。但是，这一阶级的成员经常被竞争抛到无产阶级队伍里去，而且，随着大工业的发展，他们甚至觉察到，他们很快就会完全失去他们作为现代社会中一个独立部分的地位，在商业、工业和农业中很快就会被监工和雇员所代替。

  在农民阶级远远超过人口半数的国家，例如在法国，那些站在无产阶级方面反对资产阶级的著作家，自然是用小资产阶级和小农的尺度去批判资产阶级制度的，是从小资产阶级的立场出发替工人说话的。这样就形成了小资产阶级的社会主义。西斯蒙第不仅对法国而且对英国来说都是这类著作家的首领。

  这种社会主义非常透彻地分析了现代生产关系中的矛盾。它揭穿了经济学家的虚伪的粉饰。它确凿地证明了机器和分工的破坏作用、资本和地产的积聚、生产过剩、危机、小资产者和小农的必然没落、无产阶级的贫困、生产的无政府状态、财富分配的极不平均、各民族之间的毁灭性的工业战争，以及旧风尚、旧家庭关系和旧民族性的解体。

  但是，这种社会主义按其实际内容来说，或者是企图恢复旧的生产资料和交换手段，从而恢复旧的所有制关系和旧的社会，或者是企图重新把现代的生产资料和交换手段硬塞到已被它们突破而且必然被突破的旧的所有制关系的框子里去。它在这两种场合都是反动的，同时又是空想的。

  工业中的行会制度，农业中的宗法经济，----这就是它的最后结论。

  这一思潮在它以后的发展中变成了一种怯懦的悲叹。

　　(丙)德国的或“真正的”社会主义

   法国的社会主义和共产主义的文献是在居于统治地位的资产阶级的压迫下产生的，并且是同这种统治作斗争的文字表现，这种文献被搬到德国的时候，那里的资产阶级才刚刚开始进行反对封建专制制度的斗争。

   德国的哲学家、半哲学家和美文学家，贪婪地抓住了这种文献，不过他们忘记了：在这种著作从法国搬到德国的时候，法国的生活条件却没有同时搬过去。在德国的条件下，法国的文献完全失去了直接实践的意义，而只具有纯粹文献的形式。它必然表现为关于真正的社会、关于实现人的本质的无谓思辨。这样，第一次法国革命的要求，在18世纪的德国哲学家看来，不过是一般“实践理性”的要求，而革命的法国资产阶级的意志的表现，在他们心目中就是纯粹意志、本来的意志、真正人的意志的规律。

  德国著作家的唯一工作，就是把新的法国的思想同他们的旧的哲学信仰调和起来，或者毋宁说，就是从他们的哲学观点出发去掌握法国的思想。

  这种掌握，就象掌握外国语一样，是通过翻译的。

  大家知道，僧侣们曾经在古代异教经典的手抄本上面写上荒诞的天主教圣徒传。德国著作家对世俗的法国文献采取相反的作法。他们在法国的原著下面写上自己的哲学胡说。例如，他们在法国人对货币关系的批判下面写上“人的本质的外化”，在法国人对资产阶级国家的批判下面写上所谓“抽象普遍物的统治的扬弃”，等等。

  这种在法国人的论述下面塞进自己哲学词句的作法，他们称之为“行动的哲学”、“真正的社会主义”、“德国的社会主义科学”、“社会主义的哲学论证”，等等。

  法国的社会主义和共产主义的文献就这样被完全阉割了。既然这种文献在德国人手里已不再表现一个阶级反对另一个阶级的斗争，于是德国人就认为：他们克服了“法国人的片面性”，他们不代表真实的要求，而代表真理的要求，不代表无产者的利益，而代表人的本质的利益，即一般人的利益，这种人不属于任何阶级，根本不存在于现实界，而只存在于云雾弥漫的哲学幻想的太空。

  这种曾经郑重其事地看待自己那一套拙劣的小学生作业并且大言不惭地加以吹嘘的德国社会主义，现在渐渐失去了它的自炫博学的天真。

  德国的特别是普鲁士的资产阶级反对封建主和专制王朝的斗争，一句话，自由主义运动，越来越严重了。

  于是，“真正的”社会主义就得到了一个好机会，把社会主义的要求同政治运动对立起来，用诅咒异端邪说的传统办法诅咒自由主义，诅咒代议制国家，诅咒资产阶级的竞争、资产阶级的新闻出版自由、资产阶级的法、资产阶级的自由和平等，并且向人民群众大肆宣扬，说什么在这个资产阶级运动中，人民群众非但一无所得，反而会失去一切。德国的社会主义恰好忘记了，法国的批判(德国的社会主义是这种批判的可怜的回声)是以现代的资产阶级社会以及相应的物质生活条件和相当的政治制度为前提的，而这一切前提当时在德国正是尚待争取的。

  这种社会主义成了德意志各邦专制政府及其随从----僧侣、教员、容克和官僚求之不得的、吓唬来势汹汹的资产阶级的稻草人。

  这种社会主义是这些政府用来镇压德国工人起义的毒辣的皮鞭和枪弹的甜蜜的补充。

  既然“真正的”社会主义就这样成了这些政府对付德国资产阶级的武器，那么它也就直接代表了一种反动的利益，即德国小市民的利益。在德国，16世纪遗留下来的、从那时起经常以不同形式重新出现的小资产阶级，是现存制度的真实的社会基础。

  保存这个小资产阶级，就是保存德国的现存制度。这个阶级胆战心惊地从资产阶级的工业统治和政治统治那里等候着无可幸免的灭亡，这一方面是由于资本的积聚，另一方面是由于革命无产阶级的兴起。在它看来，“真正的”社会主义能起一箭双雕的作用。“真正的”社会主义象瘟疫一样流行起来了。

  德国的社会主义者给自己的那几条干瘪的“永恒真理”披上一件用思辨的蛛丝织成的、绣满华丽辞藻的花朵和浸透甜情蜜意的甘露的外衣，这件光彩夺目的外衣只是使他们的货物在这些顾客中间增加销路罢了。

   同时，德国的社会主义也越来越认识到自己的使命就是充当这种小市民的夸夸其谈的代言人。

   它宣布德意志民族是模范的民族，德国小市民是模范的人。它给这些小市民的每一种丑行都加上奥秘的、高尚的、社会主义的意义，使之变成完全相反的东西。它发展到最后，就直接反对共产主义的“野蛮破坏的”倾向，并且宣布自己是不偏不倚的超乎任何阶级斗争之上的。现今在德国流行的一切所谓社会主义和共产主义的著作，除了极少数的例外，都属于这一类卑鄙龌龊的、令人委靡的文献。

　　2．保守的或资产阶级的社会主义

  资产阶级中的一部分人想要消除社会的弊病，以便保障资产阶级社会的生存。

  这一部分人包括：经济学家、博爱主义者、人道主义者、劳动阶级状况改善派、慈善事业组织者、动物保护协会会员、戒酒协会发起人以及形形式色色的小改良家。这种资产阶级的社会主义甚至被制成一些完整的体系。

  我们可以举蒲鲁东的《贫困的哲学》作为例子。

  社会主义的资产者愿意要现代社会的生存条件，但是不要由这些条件必然产生的斗争和危险。他们愿意要现存的社会，但是不要那些使这个社会革命化和瓦解的因素。他们愿意要资产阶级，但是不要无产阶级。在资产阶级看来，它所统治的世界自然是最美好的世界。资产阶级的社会主义把这种安慰人心的观念制成半套或整套的体系。它要求无产阶级实现它的体系，走进新的耶路撒冷，其实它不过是要求无产阶级停留在现今的社会里，但是要抛弃他们关于这个社会的可恶的观念。

  这种社会主义的另一种不够系统、但是比较实际的形式，力图使工人阶级厌弃一切革命运动，硬说能给工人阶级带来好处的并不是这样或那样的政治改革，而仅仅是物质生活条件即经济关系的改变。但是，这种社会主义所理解的物质生活条件的改变，绝对不是只有通过革命的途径才能实现的资产阶级生产关系的消灭，而是一些行政上的改良，这些改良是在这种生产关系的基础上实行的，因而丝毫不会改变资本和雇佣劳动的关系，至多只能减少资产阶级的统治费用和简化它的财政管理。

  资产阶级的社会主义只有在它变成纯粹的演说辞令的时候，才获得自己的适当的表现。

  自由贸易！为了工人阶级的利益；保护关税！为了工人阶级的利益；单身牢房！为了工人阶级的利益。----这才是资产阶级的社会主义唯一认真说出的最后的话。

  资产阶级的社会主义就是这样一个论断：资产者之为资产者，是为了工人阶级的利益。　

　　3．批判的空想的社会主义和共产主义

  在这里，我们不谈在现代一切大革命中表达过无产阶级要求的文献(巴贝夫等人的著作)。

  无产阶级在普遍激动的时代、在推翻封建社会的时期直接实现自己阶级利益的最初尝试，都不可避免地遭到了失败，这是由于当时无产阶级本身还不够发展，由于无产阶级解放的物质条件还没有具备，这些条件只是资产阶级时代的产物。随着这些早期的无产阶级运动而出现的革命文献，就其内容来说必然是反动的。这种文献倡导普遍的禁欲主义和粗陋的平均主义。

   本来意义的社会主义和共产主义的体系，圣西门、傅立叶、欧文等人的体系，是在无产阶级和资产阶级之间的斗争还不发展的最初时期出现的。关于这个时期，我们在前面已经叙述过了(见《资产阶级和无产阶级》)。

   诚然，这些体系的发明家看到了阶级的对立，以及占统治地位的社会本身中的瓦解因素的作用。但是，他们看不到无产阶级方面的任何历史主动性，看不到它所特有的任何政治运动。

   由于阶级对立的发展是同工业的发展步调一致的，所以这些发明家也不可能看到无产阶级解放的物质条件，于是他们就去探求某种社会科学、社会规律，以便创造这些条件。

   社会的活动要由他们个人的发明活动来代替，解放的历史条件要由幻想的条件来代替，无产阶级的逐步组织成为阶级要由他们特意设计出来的社会组织来代替。在他们看来，今后的世界历史不过是宣传和实施他们的社会计划。

   诚然，他们也意识到，他们的计划主要是代表工人阶级这一受苦最深的阶级的利益。在他们的心目中，无产阶级只是一个受苦最深的阶级。

   但是，由于阶级斗争不发展，由于他们本身的生活状况，他们就以为自己是高高超乎这种阶级对立之上的。他们要改善社会一切成员的生活状况，甚至生活最优裕的成员也包括在内。因此，他们总是不加区别地向整个社会呼吁，而且主要是向统治阶级呼吁。他们以为，人们只要理解他们的体系，就会承认这种体系是最美好的社会的最美好的计划。

   因此，他们拒绝一切政治行动，特别是一切革命行动；他们想通过和平的途径达到自己的目的，并且企图通过一些小型的、当然不会成功的试验，通过示范的力量来为新的社会福音开辟道路。

   这种对未来社会的幻想的描绘，是在无产阶级还很不发展、因而对本身的地位的认识还基于幻想的时候，同无产阶级对社会普遍改造的最初的本能的渴望相适应的。

   但是，这些社会主义和共产主义的著作也含有批判的成分。这些著作抨击现存社会的全部基础。因此，它们提供了启发工人觉悟的极为宝贵的材料。它们关于未来社会的积极的主张，例如消灭城乡对立，消灭家庭，消灭私人营利，消灭雇佣劳动，提倡社会和谐，把国家变成纯粹的生产管理机构，----所有这些主张都只是表明要消灭阶级对立，而这种阶级对立在当时刚刚开始发展，它们所知道的只是这种对立的早期的、不明显的、不确定的形式。因此，这些主张本身还带有纯粹空想的性质。

   批判的空想的社会主义和共产主义的意义，是同历史的发展成反比的。阶级斗争越发展和越具有确定的形式，这种超乎阶级斗争的幻想，这种反对阶级斗争的幻想，就越失去任何实践意义和任何理论根据。所以，虽然这些体系的创始人在许多方面是革命的，但是他们的信徒总是组成一些反动的宗派。这些信徒无视无产阶级的历史进展，还是死守着老师们的旧观点。因此，他们一贯企图削弱阶级斗争，调和对立。他们还总是梦想用试验的办法来实现自己的社会空想，创办单个的法伦斯泰尔，建立国内移民区，创立小伊加利亚，即袖珍版的新耶路撒冷，----而为了建造这一切空中楼阁，他们就不得不呼吁资产阶级发善心和慷慨解囊。他们逐渐地堕落到上述反动的或保守的社会主义者的一伙中去了，所不同的只是他们更加系统地卖弄学问，狂热地迷信自己那一套社会科学的奇功异效。

  因此，他们激烈地反对工人的一切政治运动，认为这种运动只是由于盲目地不相信新福音才发生的。

  在英国，有欧文主义者反对宪章派，在法国，有傅立叶主义者反对改革派。

　

四、共产党人对各种反对党派的态度

  看过第二章之后，就可以了解共产党人同已经形成的工人政党的关系，因而也就可以了解他们同英国宪章派和北美土地改革派的关系。

  共产党人为工人阶级的最近的目的和利益而斗争，但是他们在当前的运动中同时代表运动的未来。在法国，共产党人同社会主义民主党联合起来反对保守的和激进的资产阶级，但是并不因此放弃对那些从革命的传统中承袭下来的空谈和幻想采取批判态度的权利。

   在瑞士，共产党人支持激进派，但是并不忽略这个政党是由互相矛盾的分子组成的，其中一部分是法国式的民主社会主义者，一部分是激进的资产者。

   在波兰人中间，共产党人支持那个把土地革命当做民族解放的条件的政党，即发动过1846年克拉科夫起义的政党。

   在德国，只要资产阶级采取革命的行动，共产党就同它一起去反对专制君主制、封建土地所有制和小市民的反动性。

   但是，共产党一分钟也不忽略教育工人尽可能明确地意识到资产阶级和无产阶级的敌对的对立，以便德国工人能够立刻利用资产阶级统治所必然带来的社会的和政治的条件作为反对资产阶级的武器，以便在推翻德国的反动阶级之后立即开始反对资产阶级本身的斗争。

   共产党人把自己的主要注意力集中在德国，因为德国正处在资产阶级革命的前夜，因为同17世纪的英国和18世纪的法国相比，德国将在整个欧洲文明更进步的条件下，拥有发展得多的无产阶级去实现这个变革，因而德国的资产阶级革命只能是无产阶级革命的直接序幕。

   总之，共产党人到处都支持一切反对现存的社会制度和政治制度的革命运动。

   在所有这些运动中，他们都特别强调所有制问题，把它作为运动的基本问题，不管这个问题当时的发展程度怎样。

   最后，共产党人到处都努力争取全世界的民主政党之间的团结和协调。

  　共产党人不屑于隐瞒自己的观点和意图。他们公开宣布：他们的目的只有用暴力推翻全部现存的社会制度才能达到。让统治阶级在共产主义革命面前发抖吧。无产者在这个革命中失去的只是锁链。他们获得的将是整个世界。

　　　全世界无产者，联合起来！












先看到了英文，后来又找到中译文。不知道发到这里还是外语那里比较妥，还是这里吧！

newshakes

这是每个共产党人都该看的书。